The Liberal government is once again preparing to revive its controversial “online harms” legislation and Canadians should be paying close attention. After two failed attempts, including Bill C-36 in 2021 and Bill C-63 last year, Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault has confirmed that a third version is on the way. While protecting children and vulnerable communities from real online threats is undeniably important, the government’s repeated missteps raise a troubling question: are these laws about safety, or control?
The original proposal, Bill C-36, aimed to crack down on hate speech and hate crimes online by forcing platforms to remove offending content within 24 hours. On paper, that might sound reasonable. In practice, it alarmed privacy experts, civil liberties advocates, and opposition MPs alike. Critics warned it would undermine free expression, granting the government and tech platforms sweeping powers to decide what Canadians can and can’t say online. The bill died when the 2021 election was called but its spirit never really went away.
Bill C-63, tabled in 2023, expanded the scope even further. It wasn’t just about online harms anymore; it sought to modernize the Criminal Code and Human Rights Act, covering everything from sexual exploitation and deepfakes to “hateful conduct.” The legislation applied to social media, streaming services, and adult content platforms, though private messages were excluded.
The Conservatives immediately raised the alarm, arguing that the bill would lead to censorship and disproportionate punishments. Tory MP Larry Brock warned that even “mere words alone,” if deemed hateful, could land Canadians in serious legal trouble. The bill’s vague language left far too much open to interpretation, effectively chilling speech before it even happens.
Even the NDP, typically more aligned with the Liberals on social policy, expressed concern. MP Don Davies acknowledged the importance of protecting children online but echoed warnings from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association that the proposed powers were dangerously broad. He suggested splitting the bill to separate child protection measures from the more contentious speech regulations a reasonable compromise the government eventually accepted.
The legislation lapsed again earlier this year when Parliament was prorogued. Justice Minister Arif Virani then announced plans to split it into two: one focused on child protection and digital safety, and another on hate-related Criminal Code amendments. The first bill would create a new Digital Safety Commission of Canada to oversee platforms, fine violators, and force companies to lay out digital safety plans. The second would deal with stiffer penalties for hate crimes and online hate speech.
The Liberals’ platform promises sound noble criminalizing non-consensual deepfakes, cracking down on revenge porn, protecting children from online predators. No one disputes that these are serious problems that demand action. But these issues can be addressed with targeted, balanced laws. Instead, the government keeps packaging them with sweeping speech regulations that risk punishing ordinary Canadians, stifling debate, and setting dangerous precedents for state control of online expression.
The internet can be a toxic place, and real harm does happen online. But the solution isn’t to hand Ottawa and tech companies a censorship hammer and hope they wield it wisely. Any online harms legislation must be narrowly tailored, transparent, and respectful of fundamental freedoms. So far, the Liberals’ proposals have fallen short on all three fronts.
As Justice Minister Sean Fraser readies yet another attempt this fall, he faces a choice: focus on protecting victims especially children with clear, enforceable measures, or continue down the path of overreach. Canadians deserve better than a law that treats safety and free speech as mutually exclusive. We can, and must, protect both.
